Is George W. Bush one of the least influential ex-presidents in his party?
President Johnson:
Several former presidents remained at least somewhat of an important voice within the party. Barack Obama is still widely admired by Democrats, people listen to him and candidates want to campaign with him. Although his influence lately kind of vanished, Bill Clinton is still a name within the Democratic Party and certainly was until his wife lost the 2016 election, long after he left.
While Republicans for a long time cited Ronald Reagan, even decades after moving out of the White House, that's not the case with Bush Jr. at all. Even Truman, who left office very unpopular, kept some influence. Republicans didn't even want to hear about him in 2010, and after Jeb's embarrassment in the 2016 campaign, Dubya is a total non factor. No Republican officeseeker wants to campaign with him or even asks for his endorsement. He's not even a factor in Texas (it's well known he doesn't like Cruz).
Is Dubya one of the least influential ex-presidents within his party? At least in the modern era? I certainly think so; just seems like his views and personal style are out of touch with his party, especially the base. Interestingly he had a very strong standing during his 2004 reelection bid. That has completely vanished after the 2007 financial crisis and never recovered. Instead, during the Trump years, his image kind of improved with Democrats it seems.
Property Representative of the Harold Holt Swimming Centre:
If you discount those who didn't live for more than a few years after leaving office (such as LBJ, Wilson etc) then yes.
Part of Dubya's problem is that he went out of fashion during his presidency amongst his own party. I think he may have gotten booed at CPAC in about 2007. By the early Obama presidency, the Republicans were in the grip of the Tea Party, which was very different to Dubya, let alone his father.
President Johnson:
Quote from: TheTide on February 02, 2023, 03:01:25 PM
If you discount those who didn't live for more than a few years after leaving office (such as LBJ, Wilson etc) then yes.
Part of Dubya's problem is that he went out of fashion during his presidency amongst his own party. I think he may have gotten booed at CPAC in about 2007. By the early Obama presidency, the Republicans were in the grip of the Tea Party, which was very different to Dubya, let alone his father.
Yeah, Wilson for certain shouldn't be counted, for his poor health alone.
However, during his four retirement years, Johnson also didn't play much of a role within his party, though I read that just before he died Nixon actually wanted to call him and ask whether he could influence Democratic members of congress to end Watergate investigations. Not sure it's true though. However, LBJ didn't speak at the 1972 Democratic National Convention, which was found unusual at the time. I remember a newspaper article quoted in one of his biographies that said [in 1972]: "It is hard to believe Johnson didn't speak at the convention although just four years ago he was the president of the United States. But it is a fact."
Vosem:
Quote from: President Johnson on February 02, 2023, 02:48:50 PM
Is Dubya one of the least influential ex-presidents within his party? At least in the modern era? I certainly think so; just seems like his views and personal style are out of touch with his party, especially the base. Interestingly he had a very strong standing during his 2004 reelection bid. That has completely vanished after the 2007 financial crisis and never recovered. Instead, during the Trump years, his image kind of improved with Democrats it seems.
Yeah, even guys like Ford/Carter who received serious primary challenges seemed like they maintained more influence than GWB. Nixon seems like the only remotely reasonable modern-era comparison, or maybe Wilson if you go that far back. (Although Wilson recovered by the 1930s, my understanding is that he had a very bad reputation among 1920s Democrats).
I think GWB's policies embodied a set of assumptions about the way the world worked that were often not even that in sync with his own campaigns, and by the end of his administration were radically out of sync with where the GOP electorate was. It feels difficult to imagine a modern Republican President making a radical expansion of the educational bureaucracy (NCLB), a radical expansion of Medicare (Part D), and radically more interventionism a key part of their agenda. Bush also did try to change American culture in a more conservative direction (in fact his 2000 campaign was the first to make this a really substantial part of its agenda), but his attempt to do this through promoting militarism was very conceptually flawed and did not share much with what came after it.
Interestingly, comparing their gubernatorial records, the odd thing is that the modern GOP does owe a lot to Jeb Bush's tenure as Governor of Florida. He was the first red-state Governor to make civil service reform a large part of his agenda; he passed the first state-level stand-your-ground law; he was among the first to pass meaningful state-level restrictions on abortion; and among the first to begin shifting responsibilities from Medicaid to private systems, and to generally emphasize an opposition to universal healthcare. When you consider GWB's accomplishments as Governor of Texas, it feels like a laundry list of things, like tort reform or funding faith-based welfare services, that Republicans have generally moved away from emphasizing or thinking about. (And Republicans do actually still campaign with Jeb all the time...within Florida). The juxtaposition between the brothers is a really odd one.
OSR stands with Israel:
Well Democrats tried to distance themselves from Jimmy Carter for years if not decades as well . A large reason for this is both Carter and W saw decades long coalitions crumble on their watch and left extremely unpopular
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page